gnosis301:Before I put my foot into my mouth, how is this going to happen with $500,000?

This is the second part of the contract, so that they can continue working on it. NASA might be paying out the contract this way so that it would be easier to stop the project if it isn't going anywhere, or there isn't enough money to continue

Why would TFA say the stuff they're going to build in orbit is going to be used in the search for ET life? I mean sure that's a secondary or tertiary goal of all the crap we put in space, but I don't think the main purpose of that stuff is going to be search for life so much as see what's out there or low orbit experimentation.

What would be interesting to see is whether or not NASA will have the machines build stuff for other companies that want to put satellites up like the frames for the solar panels and antennas and such, then the other companies can get their main equipment up cheaper and have the arrays and trusses attached on site.

/somehow don't think our favorite everlasting life cultist will show this time around considering this is something he always liked to say wouldn't happen.

MindStalker:FTA: NASA is developing an orbiting factory that will use as part of its ongoing search for extra-terrestrial life.

The question of how far away one could see an earth-sized object got me to searching the 'tubes. Turns out to resolve a small planet at 20 light years you'd need a telescope 13 km in diameter, or 65 km if you want to see major features like mountains, cities, lakes, etc. at that distance.

Obviously we aren't going to build telescopes that large, so what if we put a 1 km wide scope at L4, say, and another at L5, and operated them as a very long base interferometer? Would that work? Or is it more a matter of light gathering than resolution?

Stone Meadow:MindStalker: FTA: NASA is developing an orbiting factory that will use as part of its ongoing search for extra-terrestrial life.

The question of how far away one could see an earth-sized object got me to searching the 'tubes. Turns out to resolve a small planet at 20 light years you'd need a telescope 13 km in diameter, or 65 km if you want to see major features like mountains, cities, lakes, etc. at that distance.

Obviously we aren't going to build telescopes that large, so what if we put a 1 km wide scope at L4, say, and another at L5, and operated them as a very long base interferometer? Would that work? Or is it more a matter of light gathering than resolution?

Yeah, I think its an issue of light gathering. If your dealing with a orbiting and rotating planet, you can't simply open up your lens and leave it open for days at a time. If you did that to earth, even if you followed its orbit, you'd have a picture of a blue blur. So to gather a snapshot in time to resolve a mountain or lake you'd need a shutter speed of probably no more than a minute or so. Then your dealing with issues of how many photons that lake sends within an area less than an arch-nanometer every minute in order to hit your telescope.

lewismarktwo:I remember when mods would just leave threads alone unless some boobies or gore or the like showed up.

What's the point of all this interference? This is just an internet forum ffs.

I would say the argument is with some subjects, such as evolution in the past, the thread becomes about one particular user instead of the topic at hand. I guess it depends on how tolerant you are of certain threads being reserved for antics focused around a particularly visible user.

Cagey B:lewismarktwo: I remember when mods would just leave threads alone unless some boobies or gore or the like showed up.

What's the point of all this interference? This is just an internet forum ffs.

I would say the argument is with some subjects, such as evolution in the past, the thread becomes about one particular user instead of the topic at hand. I guess it depends on how tolerant you are of certain threads being reserved for antics focused around a particularly visible user.

Yet it is applied inconsistently.

Today alone one thread eviscerated and purged, yet the other left unscathed.

It is almost like someone is interjecting their personal feelings/goals/views into their responsibilities/duties..... AGAIN

I'm honestly surprised 3d printing wasn't invented in spaaaaaaace. That seems like the kind of tech that would be super useful in case of broken parts and the like...rather than having to seal your heat shield together win a Funyun and Armstrong's jock.

fluffy2097:It's really only home 3d printing that is completely useless at the moment.

The shiat NASA is working with actually works pretty well, because NASA isn't using shiatty plastic with a low melting temperature and no strength.

NASA is using lasers to fuse powdered metal into solid metal.

Here is what NASA's 3d printer can do.http://www.space.com/22548-3d-printed-rocket-injector-survives-hot-f ir e-test-video.html

Here is what a $2,000 Home 3d Printer can do[farm9.staticflickr.com image 640x480]

/any questions, class?

The machines NASA is using were not designed by or for NASA. They used either their optomec or eos machine for the rocket part.

That said, the shiatty plastic you speak of is used even more than the metal. The also have Z-corp printers that use a kind of plaster/cornstarch. I have used many of the different machines that they have at JSC. The plastic printers are very useful for even operational parts. They are not used in flight projects at JSC that much, if at all, yet, but they are awesome to use on engineering development projects. The $2k machines use PLA or ABS, which is pretty crappy as you noted, but the polycarb/ABS combo and some of the polyamide flavors that are used on project I have worked are pretty stout.

It was supposed to be a neat sculpture. However, at some point the printer glitched, and began producing a bunch of useless spaghetti.

Making malformed hunks of useless PLA spaghetti is the most common thing you will ever do with a home 3D printer.

/Using ABS plastic in the home models require you to to construct your own heated baseplate.//The makerbot ships with defective parts.///Your first task with the makerbot very well might be to print replacement parts with it.

The 3D printing capability would be a great idea for space, but mostly for stronger components like brackets and joiners. A longer structure like the solar panel support would be better constructed as inflatable mylar that can be folded up for launch an then inflated in space with oil, ammonia or even some binary chemical that would solidify after being pushed into mylar.